Lastly, Joe Brown, only considers the gold and not the other assets of the United States like oil, minerals, land etc. The conservative question is do we want the government basically monetizing those assets?
Something has value up to what someone is willing to pay for it. I guess I don't understand "monetizing those assets." Can you pls explain?
I've heard it stated that gold has 'intrinsic' value. But I still think the rule applies that an item is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it.
Cheers, 'Pod
I think the inteinsic value lies in its physical use; it can be made into jewelry, and many things for which there is an actual demand, though that value certainly fluctuates; unlike paper currency, whose only value as a physical commodity might be to burn for fuel or to insulate your walls
Basically, if I understand the Mississippi Bubble correctly it means the government uses those assets to issue currency which is what happened in the Mississippi Bubble. Which happen in any singular asset based system that fails to generate more of that asset or value. For example right now there appears to be an problem with the 'paper gold' in that there is not enough actual gold to back up the paper. Which many have said for a while now, if you don't hold it, you don't own it. So right now we have assets in oil, claimed to be greatest oil deposits in the world. If those deposits are brought into the wealth fund of the United States how does that work? Will the government be investing in contracts to extract the oil to sell? And those profits go into the wealth fund for the benefit of the American people. How would one stop the greed of politicians/kickbacks/fraud?